Menu

AR-15

You can be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment and not support civilians having access to an assault weapon like an AR-15. A weapon of war like an AR-15 isn’t needed for killing deer and squirrels, so don’t say assault weapons are necessary for hunting. Hunters will be successful without using assault weapons. If you’re really serious about ending mass shootings, then you will reach the responsible conclusion that federal legislation banning the sale and possession of assault weapons for civilians is required.

Err on the Side of Life

Although I’m not a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and not an active hunter, I’m a passionate champion of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I agree with much of what the NRA has to say about gun rights. Also, as a pro-life individual, I believe in promoting the right to life, a culture of life. With an earnest pro-life advocacy, I, reminded of what President George W. Bush once stated in a different context, choose to “err on the side of life.” To “err on the side of life” in the current gun rights/gun control national debate means, from my perspective, to take whatever actions possible to save as many lives as possible.

Assault Weapons Aren’t Necessary for Hunting and Personal Defense

Since assault weapons aren’t essential to hunting and defending one’s person and property, these weapons shouldn’t be available to civilians—they should be reserved for the battlefield. Plenty of powerful guns will still be available to civilians. It’s not, therefore, a zany idea to advance federal legislation banning the sale and possession of assault weapons for civilians.

Conclusion

Democrats and Republicans need to exercise moral and political courage and face the gun lobby, the NRA head-on to foster a true culture of life in America. It’s going to be more and more difficult to attempt to articulate right to life positions while still permitting civilians to purchase and possess assault weapons.

If you’re going to be pro-life, then be pro-life regarding all issues.